Allowed

Vijay Pratap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2021BAIL/4594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 64 allowed a bail application filed by Vijay Pratap, an accused in a case involving Sections 306, 323, and 504 IPC. The Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions regarding court appearances, issuance of undertakings, and additional verification measures due to extraordinary circumstances. The applicant was released without immediate sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties to be furnished within a month; stringent conditions imposed regarding court attendance and issuance of undertakings.

Vijay Pratap Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4594 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 173 of 2020, under Sections 306, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahanganj, District- Farrukhabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 5.12.2020.

¶7

Contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is one of the six named accused persons in the first information report. It is further submitted that two co-accused persons namely Yogendra Pratap Singh and Ram Raj have already been admitted on bail by this Court, copy of bail orders has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of present bail application. The case of the applicant stands on similar footing qua of the co-accused admitted on bail. Therefore, the applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the principals of parity.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Vijay Pratap , who is involved in Case Crime No. 173 of 2020, under Sections 306, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahanganj, District- Farrukhabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING

¶12

TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A I.P.C.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A I.P.C.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention

¶19

that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.1.2021 Vikas

Vijay Pratap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pratap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Diwakar @ Lavlesh Vs State of U.P.

Gulabshri @ Gulbari Vs State of U.P.

Akshan Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.